1. ATTENTION returning members. If you are coming here from the old forum for the first time, you will need to reset you password. However, we had an email problem getting password reset links set out to a lot of the email addresses. That problem is temporarily rectified but IF you still have an issue, email me direct at info@thebuildingcodeforum.com and I will give you a temporary password.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

ANSI 117.1 (Interior Fit-Out) Clearances per "New/Addition" or "Existing Building"?

Discussion in 'Accessibility' started by Tektonic7, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    The update to ANSI 117.1 has different required accessible maneuvering clearances
    for "New Buildings vs. Additions" or "Existing Buildings." Which should a
    non-structural interior fit-out commercial office) follow? This does not seem to
    be clearly defined by the ANSI 117.1 definitions.

    a. Is the fit-out interpreted as an "Addition"?
    -or-
    b. Does it simply follow the same clearances that followed when its base building
    was permitted? (If building permit was issued prior to the adoption of the 2017 ANSI
    117.1, this would then be an "Existing Building"
     
  2. fatboy

    fatboy Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    395
    I'll have to look at the A117.1 when I get in tomorrow, but regardless of what the code says, at the end of the day, the ADA kicks in, you can roll the dice and hope that the site is not turned into the DOJ.

    BTW....welcome!
     
    Tektonic7 likes this.
  3. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    207
    Another case of non-alignament of law vs code and performance vs prescriptive/specific direction.
     
  4. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, the project is in New York City, and the building is under the 2014 NYC Building Code, which references the A117.1 for accessibility design...

    I'm wondering if the interpretation of Addition vs. Existing is under the scope of the NYC DOB to determine?
     
  5. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    207
    Please describe the scope of the "fit-out" improvements. Is it within an existing space? Is the space accessible? Any built-ins proposed?
     
  6. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your response. The fit out will consist of several stories within an existing high rise office building. It will need to be accessible. Works include: new interior partitions & doors, suspended ceilings, all MEP / FP / AV / IT services, interior finishes, systems furniture, and the likes.
     
  7. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    659
    Generally.....new work must meet new code. Not a NY guy so can't get into specifics. But usually the problems come in when/where you need to upgrade things that are outside of your planned scope of work.

    705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
    applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
    and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
    technically infeasible.
    Where compliance with this section is
    technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to
    the maximum extent that is technically feasible.
    A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible
    shall be maintained accessible during occupancy.
    705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary
    function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, or
    contains an area of, primary function, the route to the primary
    function area shall be accessible.
    The accessible route to the
    primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking
    fountains serving the area of primary function.
    Exceptions:
    1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not
    required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the
    alterations affecting the area of primary function.
     
  8. Builder Bob

    Builder Bob Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    230
    Generally, if it is an existing building and the restroom is being renovated within the existing walls, then you would have to meet the existing provisions. If you building new space and having to place new sole plates and wall studs, then you would have to meet the new requirements -

    This is one of the few times I liked NFPA's assessment of new versus old - If constructed or altered in the same time period as the original structure was constructed under an adopted code, it is new construction. If construction took place in a different code cycle, the building was considered existing.
     
  9. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    207
    So, you are not adding square footage but you are "altering" the space. The altered areas/elements must comply as must POT to the altered area. How old is the base building and has it been upgraded (barriers removed per ADA)?
     
  10. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    The building was completed in 2017, but construction started several years earlier, so the base building was built under the previous (2010) ICC A117.1. The interior fit-out is converting a vacant interior floor plate into an office space, for which NYC's DOB requires an "Alteration Type 2" permit.

    The main differences affecting the layout are the door maneuvering dimensions, which have increased in depth, and the minimum wheelchair turning clearances. I spoke with a local architect, who believes that we should follow the Existing dimensions. But I'm still not entirely clear which category an interior renovation falls under.
     
  11. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I know that we need to comply with A117.1-2017 (we are clearly beyond any hardship threshold), but inside of A117.1-2017, they offer two sets of maneuvring clearances (See 404.2.3.2 "Swinging Doors and Gates", for example). So I am trying to figure out which set of dimensions to follow for an interior alteration.
     
  12. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I wasn't clear in my question. I know that we need to comply with A117.1-2017 (we are clearly beyond any hardship threshold), but inside of A117.1-2017, they offer two sets of maneuvring clearances (See 404.2.3.2 "Swinging Doors and Gates", for example). For new buildings the clearances are larger. So I am trying to figure out which set of dimensions to follow for an interior alteration within the shell of an existing building, which doesn't add GFA to the existing building which would make it an Addition.
     
  13. mp25

    mp25 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Tektonic7 likes this.
  14. Tektonic7

    Tektonic7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. JPohling

    JPohling Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    48
    sounds like many civil lawsuits will be coming
     
  16. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    207
    What ever you choose it may not be less than ADASAD 2010 minimums.
     
  17. Paul Sweet

    Paul Sweet Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    118
    I believe that the existing standards are generally the same as ADAAG and ADASAD.
     
  18. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    207
    Careful, "generally" may not always be the same as specifically.
     

Share This Page